Disabled Caches

[RexBloodman]

Should disabled caches be archived after oh, lets say 90 days after the disabling tag to make room for new caches in the area?

 

Just curious as I was jusk going through my list on GSAK looking at each cache that has been disabled.

[+Runaround]

You can't apply a blanket rule. I've seen caches disabled for more than 90 days for legitimate reasons, such as trail maintenance or construction. Once the work was done the cache was reactivated. There was also one where the cache owner was in a serious auto accident and couldn't visit their cache for 6 months.

 

However, I've seen many with notes such as "Missing" or "Muggled" that stay disabled for quite a while. All that time, the cache owner is out logging other caches in the area. Around here, Keystone is pretty good about getting on those cache owners to take some action.

 

If you think it's been an excessive amount time try writing the cache owner. Or post a SBA log and let the approvers sort it out.

[+RPW]

If you think it's been an excessive amount time try writing the cache owner. Or post a SBA log and let the approvers sort it out.

 

That would be a great idea if the approvers paid attention to the SBA logs and if owners were actually responsive. Sometimes the approvers get swamped and those SBAs just slip by. We have one cache around here that hasn't been found for over a year, the owners haven't logged on for over a year, and three SBAs have been put on it. The cache is still listed as active.

 

Anyway, going back to the idea of an automatic archival. Yes, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for keeping a cache disabled for an extended period of time. However I suspect that there are more cases where a 90-day (or some such) limit would be a good idea. Of course the computer coding for such a function may be more hassle than it is worth -- in my opinion it is not a high priority.

[Keystone]

As Runaround noted above (thanks!), I try to remind the owners of disabled caches after 2 to 3 months, unless there's a logical reason for a long-term disablement. If I don't hear a response in a couple of weeks, then I'll archive the cache for failure to meet the "Cache Maintenance" section of the listing guidelines.

 

I react to "Should be Archived" logs within two weeks or so of receipt. Quite often, I will give the owner an opportunity to fix the problem themselves first. If I act too quickly and disable a cache, I tend to get flamed by the owner for being quick on the trigger.

 

It should not take a year and four SBA requests to address a problem cache. I am not sure what the issue is in RPW's area, but that is not how it works in my area, and it is not how it is supposed to work.

[RexBloodman]

Ok, that is the info I was looking for. Some of the caches about 15 of them that I removed from GSAK had last postings September 2004.

 

So, If I was to suggest 500 days since the cache was disabled would that be approperate? This would be over a year 365 days.

 

Yes I do realize that people do have lives to live. So if a cache has been disabled for over a year would it not be a wise choice to archive it do to the fact that it appears to be abandoned.